LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 


GIFT    OF 


LL^^f^.^r\^. 


Class 


t!i 


>^" 


THE  PATH  TO  PEACE 


Reprinted 
From  the  London     Times^^  of  June  19,  1909 

f Slightly  revised) 


By 

ANDREW  CARNEGIE 

President 


OFTH£    " 

Of  / 


THE  PEACE  SOCIETY 
OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 

507  FIFTH  AVENUE 
NEW  YORK 


.t' 


0^ 


THE  PEACE  SOCIETY 
OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 


President 
ANDREW  CARNEGIE 

Secretary  Treasurer 

SAMUEL  T.  BUTTON  ASTOR  TRUST  COMPANY 

Carl  Lorentzen,  Auditor 

Vice-Presidents 

Lyman  Abbott  John  Bassett  Moore 

R.  Fulton  Cutting  Robert  C.  Ogden 

Richard  Watson  Gilder  Alton  B.  Parker 

Charles  E.  Hughes  George  Foster  Peabody 

William  R.  Huntington  Horace  Porter 

Henry  M.  McCracken  Elihu  Root 

George  B.  McClellan  Oscar  S.  Straus 
Horace  White 

Executive  Committee 

Andrew  Carnegie  Charles  E.  Jefferson 

John  B.  Clark  George  W.  Kirchwey 

Thomas  Cochran,  Jr.  Frederick  Lynch 

Samuel  T.  Button  Marcus  M.  Marks 

Robert  Erskine  Ely  Miss  Mary  J.  Pierson 

Mrs.  Charles  H.  Farnsworth  Mrs.  Anna  Garlin  Spencer 

Hamilton  Holt  Robert  C.  Watchorn 

Board  of  Birectors 

Mrs.  Robert  Abbe  Marcus  M.  Marks 

Alfred  J.  Boulton  William  H.  Maxwell 

S.  Parkes  Cadman  John  E.  Milholland 

John  B.  Clark  William  C.  Muschenheim 

Robert  Erskine  Ely  George  A.  Plimpton 

Charles  P.  Fagnani  George  Haven  Putnam 

Mrs.  Charles  H.  Farnsworth  Miss  Mary  J.  Pierson 

John  H.  Finley  Ernst  Richard 

Algernon  S.  Frissell  Lindsay  Russell 

Hamilton  Holt  Wm.  Jay  Schieffelin 

Charles  E.  Jefferson  Charles  Sprague  Smith 

George  W.  Kirchwey  Mrs.  Anna  Garlin  Spencer 

Henry  M.  Leipziger  James  Speyer 

Frederick  Lynch  Mrs.  Henry  Villard 

William  A.  Marble  Robert  C.  Watchorn 

Executive  Secretary 
WILLIAM  H.  SHORT 

507  FIFTH  AVENUE 
NEW  YORK 


THE  PATH  TO  PEACE 


Your  New  York  correspondent  advised  you  by  wire 
of  the  proceedings  of  meetings  of  the  Peace  Societies 
of  New  York  and  Chicago,  which  called  upon  our 
President  to  exert  his  influence  for  peace  and 
"especially  to  secure  an  agreement  among  the  powers 
for  a  speedy  arrest  of  the  ruinous  competition  of 
armaments  now  prevailing." 

The  New  York  meeting  suggested  his  inviting  a 
conference  of  the  powers,  which  I,  as  President  of 
the  Society,  approved,  but  I  am  bound  to  say  that 
subsequent  travel  in  Europe  has  modified  my  views. 
It  is  not  from  America,  but  from  Britain,  such  invi- 
tation should  come. 

Wherever  one  travels  upon  the  continent  to-day  the 
chief  subject  of  conversation  among  intelligent  men 
is    the    British    Dreadnought    and    its    consequences,  i 
Dreadnoughts  might  and  probably  would  have  been; 
introduced   sooner  or  later   by   another  nation  than, 
Britain   but,   unfortunately   for  her,   they  were  not.  V 
It  is  the  British  Dreadnought  the  people  hear  of  in  ^ 
other  countries,  and  she  alone  is  blamed  for  the  seri- 
ous consequences  flowing  from  its  introduction.  ' 

There  seems  no  possibility  of  preventing  the  other 
naval  powers  from  following  the  example  of  Britain 
and  Germany,  and  altho  our  industrial  Republic  has 
nothing  to  covet  and  has  repeatedly  refused  to  give 
the  Executive  more  than  one  half  the  battleships 
demanded,  it  may  be  impossible  to  prevent  even  her 
from  increasing  her  fleet  rapidly  like  the  others.  Thus 
no  power  will  gain  much  in  naval  strength  over 
another,  for  relatively  their  positions  will  remain  sub- 
stantially as  before.  These  enlarged  navies,  instead/ 
of  tending  to  ensure  peace,  will  increase  the  danger  of 
war. 

What  a  strange  spectacle  the  naval  powers  present 


188038 


to-day!  Go  where  one  will,  he  hears  the  men  in 
power  lamenting  the  necessity  forced  upon  them  for 
increasing  armaments,  one  after  the  other  explaining 
that  they  must  increase  their  navy  and  this  only  for 
"protection." 

The  Emperor  of  Germany  and  Prince  Von  Buelow 
urge  nothing  for  their  increased  armaments  except 
"protection"  for  their  commerce  and  their  coasts. 

The  latter  addressed  the  following  message  to  the 
British  ministers  of  the  Prince  of  Peace: 

"I  sincerely  hope  that  our  guests  and  Christian 
brethren  will  bring  the  conviction  home  and  publish 
the  fact  that  there  is  living  on  this  side  of  the  North 
Sea  a  peaceful  and  laborious  people  which  heartily 
desires,  as  well  as  its  Government,  to  live  peacefully 
in  friendship  and  neighborliness  with  its  brethren 
beyond  the  Channel." 

Not  a  voice  is  raised  in  Britain  except  for  needed 
protection  from  assault.  So  with  the  good  men  of 
France.  So  with  Austria  and  Italy.  So  with  Presi- 
dent Taft,  who  recently  wrote: 

"The  policy  of  the  United  States  in  avoiding  war 
under  all  circumstances  except  those  plainly  incon- 
sistent with  honor  or  its  highest  welfare  has  been 
made  so  clear  to  the  world  as  hardly  to  need  statement 
at  my  hands.  I  can  only  say  that  so  far  as  my 
legitimate  influeuQe  extends  while  at  the  head  of  this 
Government,  it  will  always  be  exerted  to  the  full 
in  favor  of  peace,  not  only  as  between  this  country 
and  other  countries,  but  as  between  our  sister  nations." 
(Italics  are  mine.) 

One  leader  is  more  insistent  than  another  that  his 
country's  aim  is  to  secure  peace,  the  only  end  it  has 
in  view.  If  this  be  untrue,  there  is  not  an  Emperor, 
King,  President,  nor  Prime  Minister  in  the  world 
to-day  who  does  not  perjure  himself  every  now  and 
1  then,  protesting  that  his  country  desires  nothing  but 
'to  live  in  neighborly  friendship  with  all  others. 

4 


r 


Are  these  public  men,  who  have  risen  to  eminence 
and  enjoy  the  confidence  of  their  fellow-countrymen, 
perjuring  themselves?  No,  far  from  this;  they  speak 
the  sober  truth  from  the  heart.  They  feel  what  they 
utter.  The  desire  for  peace  is  genuine.  "Give  us 
peace  in  our  time,  O  Lord,"  is  the  prayer  of  civilized 
nations  and  rulers.  Ambassador  Bryce,  speaking  at 
the  Peace  Conference  in  America,  corroborates  this. 
He  says: 
)  "Every  nation  is  conscious  of  its  own  rectitude  of 
'  purpose  and  believes  its  armaments  are  for  its  own 
safety  and  will  not  be  used  aggressively." 

This  being  accepted,  unfounded  suspicion  must  be 
the  root  of  all  this  trouble.  Every  additional  battle- 
ship tends  to  convert  suspicion  in  neighboring  nations 
into  hatred,  and  then  a  misinterpreted  word,  move- 
ment or  accident,  which  would  otherwise  have^'^Beeh 
easily  explained,  becomes  the  cause  of  war.  For  war 
usually  arises  not  directly  from  the  possession  of 
armaments  by  a  nation  but  from  the  suspicions 
aroused  in  neighboring  nations  by  the  creation  of  these 
armaments.  Hence  the  impossibility  of  increased 
armaments  ever  being  conducive  to  peace.  Suspicion, 
fear,  hatred,  and  hence  the  danger  of  war,  'increase  in 
compound  ratio  as  armaments  increase. 

It  is  the  old  story ;  two  neighbors  have  a  slight  mis- 
understanding which  mutual  explanations  would 
readily  have  dispelled,  but  one  in  an  unguarded 
moment  says  to  the  other,  "I'll  make  you  behave  like 
a  gentleman."  "You  can't  do  it,"  is  the  ready  re- 
sponse. One  decides  to  buy  a  pistol,  not  for  use,  but 
solely  for  "protection"  if  attacked.  Hearing  this  the 
other  feels  he  must  have  "protection"  also.  The  first 
substitutes  a  six-chambered  revolver  just  to  be  dead 
certain  of  protection.  The  other  follows,  just  to  be 
dead  cettain.  also.  If  the  insurance  company  knew  of 
this  misunderstanding  the  life  .premiums  of  these  two 
citizens   would  rise  in  geometrical  progression  with 


each  added  weapon.  Fortunately  the  law  in  civilized 
nations,  founded  upon  experience  which  shows  that 
a  hundred  deadly  feuds  occur  where  men  go  armed 
to  one  where  it  is  prohibited,  steps  in  and  prohibits 
private  armaments  and  punishes  the  law-breakers. 
Britain  and  France  played  the  part  of  the  foolish 
neighbors  fifty  years  ago.  To-day  it  is  Britain  and 
Germany. 

Nearly  a  century  ago  (1817),  Canada  and  America 
agreed  that  upon  the  inland  seas,  which  constitute 
their  boundary  for  hundreds  of  miles,  each  should 
place  one  100-ton  vessel  armed  with  one  38-pounder. 
The  tiny  craft,  one  flying  the  Union  Jack  and  the 
other  the  Stars  and  Stripes,  have  never  fired  a  shot 
except  in  friendly  salute  to  each  other,  and  unbroken 
peace  has  been  preserved.  If  the  world  had  its  police 
force  on  the  seas,  there  would  be  the  "protection  from 
assault,"  which  each  naval  power  declares  it  only 
desires  and  is  increasing  its  navy  solely  to  ensure. 
There  would  remain  no  enemy  from  whom  "pro- 
tection" was  needed.  Commerce  would  be  immune. 
The  naval  nations  would  be  as  one  in  friendly  alliance. 

Our  English-speaking  race  has  developed  Parlia- 
mentary Government,  abolished  the  last  vestige  of 
human  slavery  from  civilized  lands,  was  first  to 
abolish  private  war  between  men,  and  was  also  promi- 
nent in  abolishing  piracy  upon  the  seas.  Why  should 
Britain  as  the  foremost  naval  power  and  the  mother- 
land of  our  race  hesitate  to  invite  the  other  naval 
powers  to  confer  with  a  view  to  peace,  and  as  a 
means  of  securing  it  suggest  that  they  combine  in 
abolishing  war  upon  the  seas,  following  the  British- 
American  example  ?  Let  this  be  freely  discussed  with 
other  suggestions.  There  is  nothing  startling  or  new 
in  this  plan.  It  would  follow  a  highly  successful 
precedent  covering  a  century.  Three  or  four  powers 
could  be  named  which,  united  to-day  to  ensure  peace 
upon  the  seas,  would  be  sufficient,  but  many  more 

6 


would  respond  to  Britain's  call.  Surely,  few,  if  any, 
would  decline.  Why  should  they?  How  could  they, 
their  aim  being  peace,  as  they  all  proclaim?  Those 
who  declined  would  reveal  themselves  the  enemies  of 
mankind.  The  peaceful  powers  accepting  might  so 
greatly  preponderate  as  to  see  their  way  to  form  a 
League  of  Peace,  and  ships  of  war,  except  the  few 
needed  for  police  duty,  would  be  unneeded,  just  as 
they  have  long  been  and  are  to-day  upon  the  inland 
seas  of  North  America,  and  would  be  left  to  rust  at 
their  docks.  No  nation  would  commit  itself  to  any- 
thing by  accepting  an  invitation  to  a  conference.  Any 
action  taken  could  be  made  subject  to  ratification  by 
the  governments. 

So  easy  the  solution  seems  that  to  many  it  may 

lappear  unworthy  of  consideration.    But  great  crises 

ihave  usually  easy  solutions  because,  being  the  product 

I  of  grave  mistakes  or  great  wrongs,  total  reversal  of  the 

I  policy  pursued  is  what  is  needed.    Here  is  the  key  to 

the  present  situation.     There  is  nothing  speculative 

about  this  proved  solution  of  the  very  question  which 

disturbs  the  nations  to-day.     Tho  it  may  be  rejected 

now,  the  day  will  nevertheless  come,  and  that  I  believe 

soon,  when  this  stone  which  the  builders  reject  shall 

become  the  head  of  the  corner.     It  has  proved  itself 

the  panacea  for  war  upon  the  seas. 

Has  our  race  lost  the  breed  of  great  statesmen  or  is 
there  to-day  a  Prime  Minister  and  Cabinet  in  Britain 
composed  of  men  who  dare  be  great  and  thus  lead  the 
nations  out  of  bondage  to  the  false  god  of  war,  becom- 
ing the  foremost  body  of  statesmen  of  all  time  by 
having  rendered  mankind  the  greatest  service?  Or  is 
such  an  invitation  to  the  powers  to  be  the  beneficent 
act  of  others  more  zealous  in  the  cause  of  peace? 
Even  to  attempt  and  fail  for  the  time  in  such  a 
cause  would  give  to  the  participants  lasting  place 
among  those  whom  coming  generations  are  to  hold  in 
honor. 


The  policy  of  conciliation  pursued  by  Britain  has 
recently  proved  its  claims  to  favor  by  brilliant  suc- 
cesses, both  in  South  Africa  and  in  India.  She  is 
entitled  to  adopt  as  her  motto,  and  none  is  so  well 
adapted  to  the  present  crisis,  "First  all  means  to  con- 
ciliate." Britain  has  also  won  favor  in  other  lands 
by  the  calm,  firm  moderation  displayed  by  her  Gov- 
ernment and  its  refusal  to  be  stampeded  into  unneces- 
sary armaments,  which  would  only  add  fuel  to  the 
flame  abroad,  and  when  for  years  to  come  its  naval 
supremacy  is  perfectly  secure.  It  has  avoided  bluster 
and  maintained  a  dignified  reserve. 

Mr.  Editor,  in  all  truth  and  soberness,  it  should  no 
longer  be  permissible  for  any  two  powers  in  jealous 
rivalry  to  build  Dreadnoughts  contingent  upon  what 
each  other  may  do,  thus  compelling  all  other  naval 
powers  to  follow  their  ruinous  and,  in  this  the  twen- 
tieth century,  saddening  example,  or  to  become  de- 
fenceless. 

This  is  no  mere  German-British  affair.  It  is  a 
world-wide  issue,  and  the  next  step,  momentous  as  it 
may  prove  for  good  or  evil,  is  apparently  for  Britain 
to  take  as  the  inventor  and  first  adopter  of  the 
Dreadnought. 

Whatever  the  final  result,  if  Britain  played  the  part 
of  peacemaker,  as  suggested,  she  would  have  the 
moral  support  of  the  enlightened  public  sentiment  of  the 
world  with  her,  a  tower  of  strength.  If  repulsed  she 
would  have  her  quarrel  just.  It  is  not  for  any  non- 
citizen  to  advise;  she  will  choose  her  own  path;  cer- 
tain it  is,  however,  she  could  play  no  nobler  part  nor 
one  that  would  redound  in  history  more  to  her  honor 
and  glory,  illustrious  as  that  history  is,  for  henceforth 
it  is  the  triumphs  of  peace  through  conciliation,  not 
those  of  brutal  war  through  the  slaughter  of  our 
fellowmen,  that  are  to  make  nations  venerated  in  after 


I  write  as  one  who  loves  his  native  land. 


8 


tS^f. 


188038 


